The start of the Republican national convention in Tampa was delayed at least a day due to Tropical Storm Isaac, churning around the Florida Keys and headed for the Gulf Coast. Tampa was fortunate enough to avoid a direct hit — though the buckets of rain the storm dumped in its path threatened to turn the Florida city into a tropical aquarium. But New Orleans and much of the rest of the Gulf Coast may not be so lucky. Already the effect of the storm is being felt by the oil and gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico itself, where refineries and rigs alike could be at risk from Isaac. The Interior Department estimates that 78% of Gulf oil production has been halted ahead of the storm. As the Gulf is still responsible for almost a quarter of total U.S. oil output, the temporary closure has already pushed gas prices up by more than 2%.

In all likelihood, Isaac will prove only a minor inconvenience to the Republican convention, but the storm and its likely economic effects provide a valuable backdrop for considering the energy policies of soon-to-no-longer-be-just-presumptive GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney. In a speech he gave in New Mexico last week — and a white paper the campaign published on August 23 — Romney outlined an energy vision built around two things: domestic oil and domestic natural gas. Romney promised to boost U.S. fossil fuel production by de-emphasizing federal environmental regulations for drilling, and empowering individual states to do as they will with their energy riches. If Alaska or Montana or Virginia wanted to drill for oil and gas within their borders — or along their shoreline — a President Romney wouldn’t let the federal government get in the way.

Romney claims those changes will help make the U.S. energy independent by 2020, thanks largely to vastly increased domestic oil production, with the only imports coming from North American allies Canada and Mexico. That prediction depends heavily on the shale oil revolution in states like Texas and North Dakota continuing to grow. Along with oil sands crude from Canada — Romney is in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline that President Obama temporarily rejected earlier this year — Romney believes oil production throughout all of North America can more than double from 15 million barrels a day over the next decade. “The net net of all this, as you can see, is by 2020, we’re able to produce somewhere between 28 million barrels per day of oil and we won’t need to buy any oil from the Middle East or Venezuela or anywhere else we don’t want to,” Romney said in New Mexico last week.

Is Romney’s goal realistic? It’s a long shot. The U.S. produced 5.7 million barrels of oil a day in 2011, a number that has been growing in recent years — awkwardly for Romney, since those are the same years President Obama has been in office. But even though a mini-oil boom is underway in the U.S., current domestic production is still well beneath the 10 million barrel a day peak of the late 1960s, simply because so many of the old oil fields in Alaska and the Gulf have been tapped out. Even with greatly increased imports from other North American countries, it would likely take a miracle to get domestic oil production online with what Romney is promising. And while shifting control over oil and gas permitting to the states — a reversal of more than a hundred years of federal law — would likely speed up drilling, it would almost certainly come at an environmental cost. It’s only been a little more than two years since the Gulf of Mexico oil spill — even if it feels a lot longer — and taking regulators off the jobs seems like a good way to ensure a new accident.

But what’s really wrong with Romney’s energy plan is the goal itself. Romney trumpets energy independence as a way to kick-start the economy and reduce costs for the middle class, but as long as the U.S. remains overwhelmingly reliant on oil, the country won’t be independent — wherever that oil comes from. Crude is traded on a global market, and there’s little to no hometown discount. That’s why a supply disruption causes gas prices to go up, whether that disruption is happening in a Mideast exporting nation we can’t stand or in our own backyard in the Gulf of Mexico. Shifting more of our oil imports from Saudi Arabia to Canada might be good for politics, but don’t expect it to do much to relieve the pain at the pump. The Canadians, after all, aren’t interested in cutting us a North American discount. It’s true we’ve been pumping more oil at home over the past few years, but that’s done little to reduce the price of gas, which is now more expensive than it has ever been at this point in the calendar. What was true in 2008 is true now — we can’t “drill, baby, drill” our way to cheap energy.

That isn’t to say that the next President shouldn’t try to increase domestic oil production. More U.S. oil means lower imports, which is good for the economy and good for the trade deficit. But there should be more to energy policy than just drilling. Reducing America’s disproportionately huge demand for oil — the U.S. holds less than 3% of the world’s crude reserves but consumes more than 20% of the global supply— is at least as important as increasing supply. President Obama can claim that he’s tried to moderate demand, pushing through significant increases in U.S. fuel economy standards. Romney, though, opposes those fuel efficiency standards, just as he opposes increased aid for solar, wind and other alternatives — with the Iowa-friendly, politically expedient exception of biofuels — that might help the U.S. break its dependency on oil. It’s a blueprint for addiction — not independence.

I like this concept of reducing the demand as opposed to just increasing domestic supply. One is addressing the root of the problem, being proactive, and the other is just covering up, being reactive. Learn more about the natural gas we have in shale at shalestuff.com

The economy world wide is in the hopper. Expensive energy is sapping money from the consumer that would otherwise be spent driving the economy to purchase goods and services that would create jobs.

The potential additional oil production capacity in the US is about 10 million barrels per day. That is double the current US output. When there is one or 2 million barrel per day disruption...short term... in world production, the price sky rockets. Add 10 million barrels per day and the price will retreat to the 1990's levels.

For every $1 drop in the price of gas in the US alone, there is $200 billion added to the buying power of the consumers to drive the economy. That is a $200 billion stimulus without any government deficit, dollar weakening spending. Each year.

Add to that the stimulus of lowered prices of all petroleum related costs... World Wide... and you have a multi trillion dollar world wide stimulus ... without any government spending... to drive the economy creating jobs, higher wages and prosperity.

Once the economic situation is righted, and too many people are making too much money, causing inflation, THEN suck money out of the economy to cool off inflation, by spending a fortune to develop alternative energy sources.

Energy independance, what a concept. I imagine it would feel great to be free of utilities and oil companies. We could have a small home fuel refinery in the back yard and use it for the house and the car.

What, too expensive? Maybe. But so far the solar collectors on my roof make my electric bill less than twenty bucks. That even covers charging the car so my Chevron bill is zero. It appears that I have locked in my driving cost and electric bill for the next twenty to thirty years. My neighbors pay at least three or four hundred dollars more per month and that will increase every year.

Does this make you feel independant? The big mystery is how you will benefit by sending a big percentage of your annual income to Continental Resources, owned by oil billionaire Harold Hamm, author of the Romney energy plan. I can see how he will feel more independant with a few more billion of your dollars tucked away in one of Mr Romneys offshore banks.

We should switch to natural gas to power our vehicles and nuclear and clean coal to power our electrical needs. This will create millions of great paying jobs in mining, drilling and building. It will also reduce the amount of oil we need. Remember that oil is used widely in manufacturing everything from plastics to drugs. We can indeed be energy independent by 2020 if the left wing and environmentalists would cease trying to block every attempt we make in this endeavour. Cheap energy that is not subject to global tension would also incentivise world wide business to locate here. If we do not utilize the resources we own in abundance history will show our economic collapse as entirely preventable.

It's Time to grow up a little, Mr. Walsh. As a matter of fact, the political 'Green' movement is a crony capitalist power grab of the energy markets, supported by useful idiots like yourself. These people grow rich at the expense of the poor. Windmills, solar panels and other novelty energy sources only drive up energy costs for those who can least afford it, and in the long run cause death and poverty for some while enriching the politically connected. Get off your high-horse son, you should hang your head in shame for your part in this scam.

It's a little sad that Time's science and space section has decided to tackle the issue of the 2012 election by throwing their support behind the absent landlord, Barack Obummer. So much for unbiased reporting, this is just another propaganda piece with the BO seal of approval.

Coal works, as does diesel and natural gas. Complain all you want, but wind and solar are not what is powering this country. Mitt is smart enough to know that you go with what works while you develop what's in the pipeline until it works. Unfortunately, the current administration believes in putting the cart before the horse and their record of (no) success is a demonstration of what happens when you do that.

Unfortunately for the American voters, understanding the impact of the myriad of factors that influence current gas prices and future happiness is impossible.

Would you rather have the brightest flame burns quickest in America, or should we use our human resources to properly balance developing future technology to the rate at which we consume fossil fuels?

The problem is, there is no short term solution to deal with our long term problems. The Republicans appear to want to play hot potato with drilling as a short term solution, where as said below, prices aren't going to change. US gas supply prices would go up as Mid East prices go down and the average would be the same. As an independent, I applaud Democrats for at least trying to take responsibility. Now having my own children since the last election, I really don't care about my generation, what about theirs? I want them to be happy, not me. I want them to have a chance at a better world. Just look at where we are, it's depressing.

Less than 2 million barrel per day POTENTIAL TEMPORARY cut in production causes a dramatic price rise. If you don't think a 10 million per day PERMANENT increase in production will cause a significant drop you are stupid or maybe just ignorant.

Sorry Stephen, you're wrong. Because it would never go as planned, for the many reasons that drive oil prices.

Ok, to your point, a 10 million per day increase would cause a drop in prices, but where exactly are you going to put all that extra oil? People aren't instantly going to be buying all that extra oil? What about the long term contracts and relationships we have with foreign countries because of oil? What are you going to do in 5 years when the easy access oil starts drying up? How are you going to keep up with developing and building the equipment to extract the hard to get oil? How do you plan to deal with the environmental issues? How are you going to convince all the US investors with money in Arab, Canadian and Venezuelan oil to let the US government cause a giant, non-market driven shift that WILL disrupt the world economies, driven by greedy republicans like you that want it all and want it now, what ever the cost? Uhh, selfish are we?? Why do you think we put squat into new technology to replace oil compared to the dollars we spend each year lobbying and investing in foreign oil? Where do you think the BUSH's money is invested in??? The typical iconic Republican puppets' family is good FRIENDS with many of the big Arab oil families.

How exactly do you plan to remove Crude Oil from public trading? That's where prices are ultimately decided since Gas is made from Crude? It's traded on world markets, and driven from supply and demand, with influences from everything from natural disasters to seasonal changes.

How are you going to change the 16+ different blends of gasoline for different states to meet state regulated emissions?

Are you willing to risk the world economies even more than we have just so you can have cheap gas? Obviously you are, and thank you for showing us the deep understanding you have of the issues.

And the brightest flame burns quickest is a literal statement.

Oh, and yea, I'm stupid and ignorant, thanks for pointing that out. I'm also an Engineering Director that runs a division of a company that develops high tech sensing equipment for the Medical and OIL AND GAS industry. Get lost.

OBAMA IS DRILLING more than ever----OIL STILL GOING UP 50% of oil comes from USA the reason they drill here is the high price--and it is going to get higher WE NEED RENEWABLE--the best country that is doing well GERMANY 50% RENEWABLE

I don't think Germany is at 50%. But, it is far ahead of most of the world. All over Europe they are moving forward and now China is thrusting itself into a position of leadership. President Obama and the Democrats are just doing what should have been done 30 years ago.

I mention Germany and their passive houses and Aleo Solar in my above posting.

I have driven electric since 2006, and I am here to tell you, its a fail as a MAGIC BULLET for America, I can go on and on with tech specs as to why that car, and solar , and wind AINT gonna cut it, but the enlightened among us already understand the science, and those that don't, don't want to, and will refuse to face reality.

If they worked, we would have em, they don't.

Now go back to your conspiracy theories about how corporation prevent it from working.

No he won't. You know it, we know it and they know it. Romney won't raise any taxes - because he's a republican. He'll do exactly what he says he'll do: decrease stupid taxes like inheritance and capital gains taxes, pit forth legislation to repatriate overseas capital gains, remove subsidies and handouts to programs that have proven worthless, repeal Obama care (or at least defund it), work to provide REAL immigration reform (not just blanket amnesty) and push to make some of the looming tax hikes disappear forever.

Is Romney channelling Sarah Palin? How come the only answer Republicans have is "dig it out of the ground"? Don't they believe in education or science? Oh wait. That's right. They don't. I forgot. I just assumed that, well, nevermind.

What part of, coal, hydroelectric, natural gas and diesel ACTUALLY WORK are you having trouble understanding? What part of, solar and wind power DON'T are you struggling with? Countries (including this one) have been struggling with wind amp; solar power generation and storage for decades and we just aren't "there" yet. Until we are, Romney (like so many others) understand that you have to relie on what works.

Besides, you know what the number one byproduct of oil refining is? Plastic polymers... We stop making oil, plastic will take over as a commodity item. Maybe if you actually did a little research (of your own) you would understand the ramifications of reduced drilling and the law of unintended consequences...

Not just that. An electric car is a battery and a moter. A gas car is everything from spark plugs to carborators to shafts and cams and engine block and on and one. A lot of industries would die if we went to a simple and easy to make electric car.

Dear god deanrd- you really don't understand this whole debate at all, do you... There is absolutely nothing simple about electric cars. The electric car's regenerative drive amp; braking system alone makes the ABS and automatic transmission in gas powered look simple. The problem with electric cars is their extreme complexity, the battery's physical and charge life, the price, the inability to "re-fuel" quickly and the environmental impact of their batteries and the charging process.

Dear "Useyourheadnow", You are using your wrong head to think with. Check out the Lightening cars out of England 10 minute recharge , the Phoenix Motorcars just bought by China 10 minute recharge. Plus, you obviously are no engineering student-electric cars are extremely simple compared to internal combustion vehicles.

You want your "Amercia" to be like the old Soviet style bloc planned economies with factories churning out old obsolete items? Using taxpayer and consumer funds to support your favorite companies? "Taking our country back...wards?"

It's obvious you are the typical whatever sounds good recipe for a voter. Go learn in detail about the issues before you make your decisions with an open mind. It should never be ....hmmmm, yeah okay, that sounds nice.

Of course the environmentalists will try to block this as they will not be happy until we are living in tents. This is despite the fact that they recently discovered Palm trees under the ice in Antarctica. Anyway, what Romney's plan means is jobs and tax revenues, in addition to spending much fewer American dollars with people who really don't like or support us. The point that more drilling will not reduce the cost of gas and oil was proved false by the drop in natural gas prices that have occurred since we began fracking operations in several states.